Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparative analysis of the in vivo kinetic properties of various bone substitutes filled into a peri-implant canine defect model

  • Jingyang Kang (Department of Regenerative and Reconstructive Dentistry, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University) ;
  • Masaki Shibasaki (Department of Regenerative and Reconstructive Dentistry, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University) ;
  • Masahiko Terauchi (Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University) ;
  • Narumi Oshibe (Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University) ;
  • Katsuya Hyodo (Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University) ;
  • Eriko Marukawa (Department of Regenerative and Reconstructive Dentistry, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University)
  • Received : 2022.11.11
  • Accepted : 2023.04.30
  • Published : 2024.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: Deproteinized bovine bone or synthetic hydroxyapatite are 2 prevalent bone grafting materials used in the clinical treatment of peri-implant bone defects. However, the differences in bone formation among these materials remain unclear. This study evaluated osteogenesis kinetics in peri-implant defects using 2 types of deproteinized bovine bone (Bio-Oss® and Bio-Oss/Collagen®) and 2 types of synthetic hydroxyapatite (Apaceram-AX® and Refit®). We considered factors including newly generated bone volume; bone, osteoid, and material occupancy; and bone-to-implant contact. Methods: A beagle model with a mandibular defect was created by extracting the bilateral mandibular third and fourth premolars. Simultaneously, an implant was inserted into the defect, and the space between the implant and the surrounding bone walls was filled with Bio-Oss, Bio-Oss/Collagen, Apaceram-AX, Refit, or autologous bone. Micro-computed tomography and histological analyses were conducted at 3 and 6 months postoperatively (Refit and autologous bone were not included at the 6-month time point due to their rapid absorption). Results: All materials demonstrated excellent biocompatibility and osteoconductivity. At 3 months, Bio-Oss and Apaceram-AX exhibited significantly greater volumes of formation than the other materials, with Bio-Oss having a marginally higher amount. However, this outcome was reversed at 6 months, with no significant difference between the 2 materials at either time point. Apaceram-AX displayed notably slower bioresorption and the largest quantity of residual material at both time points. In contrast, Refit had significantly greater bioresorption, with complete resorption and rapid maturation involving cortical bone formation at the crest at 3 months, Refit demonstrated the highest mineralized tissue and osteoid occupancy after 3 months, albeit without statistical significance. Conclusions: Overall, the materials demonstrated varying post-implantation behaviors in vivo. Thus, in a clinical setting, both the properties of these materials and the specific conditions of the defects needing reinforcement should be considered to identify the most suitable material.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

We thank Mr. Matsumoto of KUREHA Co. and Mr. Nakajima of HOYA Technosurgical Co. for providing tissue specimen and material information, respectively. We also thank Geistlich Pharma for providing material information as well.

References

  1. Guillaume B. Dental implants: a review. Morphologie 2016;100:189-98.
  2. Bodic F, Hamel L, Lerouxel E, Basle MF, Chappard D. Bone loss and teeth. Joint Bone Spine 2005;72:215-21.
  3. Zhao R, Yang R, Cooper PR, Khurshid Z, Shavandi A, Ratnayake J. Bone grafts and substitutes in dentistry: a review of current trends and developments. Molecules 2021;26:3007.
  4. Chavda S, Levin L. Human studies of vertical and horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation comparing different types of bone graft materials: a systematic review. J Oral Implantol 2018;44:74-84.
  5. Axelsson P, Nystrom B, Lindhe J. The long-term effect of a plaque control program on tooth mortality, caries and periodontal disease in adults. Results after 30 years of maintenance. J Clin Periodontol 2004;31:749-57.
  6. Bhalla N, Dym H. Update on maxillary sinus augmentation. Dent Clin North Am 2021;65:197-210.
  7. Osorio CC, Escobar LM, Gonzalez MC, Gamboa LF, Chambrone L, Chambrone L. Evaluation of density, volume, height and rate of bone resorption of substitutes of autologous bone grafts for the repair of alveolar clefts in humans: a systematic review. Heliyon 2020;6:e04646.
  8. Kumar P, Vinitha B, Fathima G. Bone grafts in dentistry. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2013;5:S125-7.
  9. Bauer TW, Muschler GF. Bone graft materials. An overview of the basic science. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000;371:10-27.
  10. Fillingham Y, Jacobs J. Bone grafts and their substitutes. Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:6-9.
  11. Giannoudis PV, Dinopoulos H, Tsiridis E. Bone substitutes: an update. Injury 2005;36 Suppl 3:S20-7.
  12. Yamada M, Egusa H. Current bone substitutes for implant dentistry. J Prosthodont Res 2018;62:152-61.
  13. Perez-Sanchez MJ, Ramirez-Glindon E, Lledo-Gil M, Calvo-Guirado JL, Perez-Sanchez C. Biomaterials for bone regeneration. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010;15:e517-22.
  14. Garcia-Gareta E, Coathup MJ, Blunn GW. Osteoinduction of bone grafting materials for bone repair and regeneration. Bone 2015;81:112-21.
  15. Finkemeier CG. Bone-grafting and bone-graft substitutes. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002;84:454-64.
  16. Yamasaki N, Hirao M, Nanno K, Sugiyasu K, Tamai N, Hashimoto N, et al. A comparative assessment of synthetic ceramic bone substitutes with different composition and microstructure in rabbit femoral condyle model. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2009;91:788-98.
  17. Kikuchi M, Itoh S, Ichinose S, Shinomiya K, Tanaka J. Self-organization mechanism in a bonelike hydroxyapatite/collagen nanocomposite synthesized in vitro and its biological reaction in vivo. Biomaterials 2001;22:1705-11. 
  18. Riihonen R, Nielsen S, Vaananen HK, Laitala-Leinonen T, Kwon TH. Degradation of hydroxyapatite in vivo and in vitro requires osteoclastic sodium-bicarbonate co-transporter NBCn1. Matrix Biol 2010;29:287-94.
  19. Wenisch S, Stahl JP, Horas U, Heiss C, Kilian O, Trinkaus K, et al. In vivo mechanisms of hydroxyapatite ceramic degradation by osteoclasts: fine structural microscopy. J Biomed Mater Res A 2003;67:713-8.
  20. Rolvien T, Barbeck M, Wenisch S, Amling M, Krause M. Cellular mechanisms responsible for success and failure of bone substitute materials. Int J Mol Sci 2018;19:2893.
  21. Baldini N, De Sanctis M, Ferrari M. Deproteinized bovine bone in periodontal and implant surgery. Dent Mater 2011;27:61-70.
  22. Das D, Zhang Z, Winkler T, Mour M, Gunter C, Morlock M, et al. Bioresorption and degradation of biomaterials. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 2012;126:317-33.
  23. Fukuba S, Okada M, Nohara K, Iwata T. Alloplastic bone substitutes for periodontal and bone regeneration in dentistry: current status and prospects. Materials (Basel) 2021;14:1096.
  24. Chang HH, Yeh CL, Wang YL, Fu KK, Tsai SJ, Yang JH, et al. Neutralized dicalcium phosphate and hydroxyapatite biphasic bioceramics promote bone regeneration in critical peri-implant bone defects. Materials (Basel) 2020;13:823.
  25. De Santis E, Lang NP, Cesaretti G, Mainetti T, Beolchini M, Botticelli D. Healing outcomes at implants installed in sites augmented with particulate autologous bone and xenografts. An experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:77-86.
  26. Dahlin C, Linde A, Gottlow J, Nyman S. Healing of bone defects by guided tissue regeneration. Plast Reconstr Surg 1988;81:672-6.
  27. Fickl S, Zuhr O, Wachtel H, Bolz W, Huerzeler MB. Hard tissue alterations after socket preservation: an experimental study in the beagle dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:1111-8.
  28. Mano T, Akita K, Fukuda N, Kamada K, Kurio N, Ishikawa K, et al. Histological comparison of three apatitic bone substitutes with different carbonate contents in alveolar bone defects in a beagle mandible with simultaneous implant installation. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2020;108:1450-9.
  29. Abdelgawad ME, Soe K, Andersen TL, Merrild DM, Christiansen P, Kjaersgaard-Andersen P, et al. Does collagen trigger the recruitment of osteoblasts into vacated bone resorption lacunae during bone remodeling? Bone 2014;67:181-8.
  30. Folkman M, Becker A, Meinster I, Masri M, Ormianer Z. Comparison of bone-to-implant contact and bone volume around implants placed with or without site preparation: a histomorphometric study in rabbits. Sci Rep 2020;10:12446.
  31. Manresa C, Bosch M, Echeverria JJ. The comparison between implant stability quotient and bone-implant contact revisited: an experiment in Beagle dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:1213-21.
  32. Meagher MJ, Parwani RN, Virdi AS, Sumner DR. Optimizing a micro-computed tomography-based surrogate measurement of bone-implant contact. J Orthop Res 2018;36:979-86.
  33. Molly L. Bone density and primary stability in implant therapy. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17 Suppl 2:124-35.
  34. Bernhardt R, Kuhlisch E, Schulz MC, Eckelt U, Stadlinger B. Comparison of bone-implant contact and bone-implant volume between 2D-histological sections and 3D-SRµCT slices. Eur Cell Mater 2012;23:237-47.
  35. Park YS, Yi KY, Lee IS, Jung YC. Correlation between microtomography and histomorphometry for assessment of implant osseointegration. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:156-60.
  36. Block MS, Finger IM, Fontenot MG, Kent JN. Loaded hydroxylapatite-coated and grit-blasted titanium implants in dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4:219-25.
  37. Lian Z, Guan H, Ivanovski S, Loo YC, Johnson NW, Zhang H. Effect of bone to implant contact percentage on bone remodelling surrounding a dental implant. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;39:690-8.